The 2024 year has been a historic year for India’s judiciary, as the Supreme Court has delivered momentous rulings that have completely changed the legal and policy environment of the country. These decisions have generated national conversations, sometimes controversies, and addressed various concerns including, regulation of madrasa education to rejecting controversial initiatives like the Electoral Bond Scheme.
Each ruling has altered the parameters of the constitution, having a significant effect on India’s political, social, and legal system. Here’s a closer look at some of the most important rulings the Supreme Court has made this year.
Gujarat govt acted in tandem with Bilkis Bano rape convicts: SC
In what can be termed as justice restored, the Supreme Court’s first major ruling in 2024 was to strike down the Gujarat government’s decision to release 11 rape convicts in the Bilkis Bano case. The accused had been serving life sentences for the gang rape of Bano and the murder of her family during the 2002 Gujarat riots. The original sentence in Mumbai placed the Maharashtra government as the rightful authority to assess remission requests.
In a verbal comment, the court noted that the Gujarat government deliberately entertained a remission application from the convicts despite lacking jurisdiction, it further added that the BJP-led state administration acted “in tandem” with the convicts. Justice BV Nagarathna emphasized that remission requires adherence to the rule of law. While remission decisions fall under administrative discretion, the Supreme Court asserted its power to annul such orders, if found unlawful.
SC strikes down electoral bonds scheme
Ahead of the Lok Sabha Elections in 2024, a five-judge bench struck down the 2018 Electoral Bond Scheme calling it ‘unconstitutional,’ which allowed corporations, individuals, and organizations to anonymously fund political parties. On February 15, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that voters have the right to know the sources of political funding. It determined that the scheme was flawed and failed to justify the union’s claim of protecting donors from retaliation by rival parties.
To promote transparency, the Supreme Court halted bond sales and directed the Election Commission and the State Bank of India to publicly disclose all data on past transactions. This sparked widespread analysis by citizens, journalists, and researchers, who linked donations to government contracts and stalled criminal investigations. However, in August, the Court declined to establish a special investigation team to probe allegations of quid pro quo, dismissing them as mere “assumptions.”
Supreme Court ends lawmakers’ immunity on taking bribes
On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court overturned its 1998 decision in the PV Narasimha Rao case during the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) cash-for-votes case. A seven-judge bench led by then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud ruled that parliamentary privileges do not extend to acts of corruption. The Court clarified that legislative immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution only protects actions essential to legislative duties, excluding criminal activities such as bribery. This landmark judgment ensures that legislators cannot hide behind parliamentary privileges to engage in corrupt practices.
NEET-UG exam integrity
Amid the controversy over a string of paper leaks, the Supreme Court in July refused to cancel the 2024 NEET UG exam for entrance to medical colleges saying that the paper leak was not “systemic” or widespread enough that it affected the “integrity” of the exam.
The bench, headed by Chandrachud, said there wasn’t sufficient material available on the record to order a re-test but clarified that its judgment would not prevent authorities from taking action against candidates who had secured admission using malpractices.
Supreme Court allows sub-classification of SC/ST castes
In a landmark ruling on affirmative action, a seven-judge Supreme Court bench upheld the state’s power to create sub-classifications within scheduled caste and scheduled tribe (SC/ST) categories, overturning the 2004 EV Chinnaiah precedent.
The 6:1 majority, led by former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud reasoned that sub-classification promotes “substantive equality” by addressing varying levels of discrimination within these groups. Any such law, however, must be supported by empirical evidence and remain subject to judicial review.
Following the judgement, Haryana became the first state to implement sub-classification, reserving 10 percent of SC jobs for the most deprived communities. In Telangana, CM Revanth Reddy promised favourable outcomes for the Madiga community, who have long advocated for such measures.
SC grants Arvind Kejriwal bail
Arvind Kejriwal’s bail marked a shift in the stringent interpretation of bail provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. Kejriwal was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for his alleged involvement in the Delhi Liquor Policy scam and by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on related corruption charges. The Supreme Court, noting his prolonged incarceration and the unlikelihood of his trial commencing soon, granted him bail.
This ruling set a precedent for other opposition leaders, including Manish Sisodia, K Kavitha, and V Senthil Balaji, potentially paving the way for their release. Following orders frequently citing delays in trial commencement, the Court reaffirmed the principle that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” in PMLA cases. The case signalled a departure from the Court’s July 2022 Vijay Madanlal ruling which had upheld strict bail conditions under the PMLA. It also introduced a new criterion for evaluating arrests under the Act: the “need and necessity” of detention.
Watching child pornography in private POCSO offence
In Just Rights for Children Alliance vs S Harish, the Supreme Court explicitly criminalized the possession, viewing, and storing of child sexual abuse material (CSEAM). Justice JB Pardiwala clarified that Section 15 of the POCSO Act makes such possession punishable whether for distribution or personal consumption.
The Court ruled that intermediaries failing to remove flagged content would lose their immunity under the IT Act’s “safe harbour” clause, leaving social media platforms grappling with enforcement challenges.
SC ruling empowers states on minerals, alcohol regulation
In two key rulings, nine-judge benches strengthened state legislative powers under India’s federal framework. The Mineral Area Development Authority case asserted that Parliament cannot encroach upon state authority over mines and minerals. Similarly, the Lalta Prasad Vaish case affirmed state’s rights to regulate industrial alcohol.
While both verdicts upheld a clear division of powers between the Union and states, Justice Nagarathna dissented, warning that central oversight on critical sectors like minerals prevents uneven development and interstate rivalries.
SC upholds constitutional validity of Section 6A of Citizenship Act
In a 4:1 majority, the Supreme Court upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act granting citizenship to immigrants who entered Assam before March 24, 1971, as per the Assam Accord. The judgement balanced legal certainty for immigrants with Assam’s cultural identity, dismissing claims of “external aggression.”
However, native Assamese groups, seeking to push the cutoff to 1951, expressed disappointment, as the provision remains a flashpoint in Assam’s delicate socio-political landscape.
UP madrasa law
A three-judge bench led by CJI upheld the validity of a 2004 law that regulates the functioning of madrasas in Uttar Pradesh and set aside an Allahabad High Court judgment that had declared the law unconstitutional and violative of the principle of secularism.
The bench held that the High Court had erred in holding that the statute must be struck down if it violates the secularism principle. “The state can regulate the standards of education (in madrasas)… regulations relating to the quality of education do not interfere with the administration of the madrasas,” the Chief Justice said.
All pvt properties don’t form ‘material resources’ of community, can’t be taken over by state
In a ruling clarifying Article 39(b), the Supreme Court determined that not all private property qualifies as a “material resource of the community.” The majority held that criteria such as availability and acquisition are necessary for such classification. The Court also reaffirmed the constitutional validity of Article 31C, protecting laws advancing wealth redistribution from fundamental rights challenges.
SC overturns 1967 judgment denying AMU minority status
Overturning a 57-year-old precedent, the Supreme Court ruled that institutions established by minority founders through legal instruments could still claim minority status under Article 30. The case, triggered by AMU’s 2005 decision to reserve 50 percent of postgraduate medical seats for Muslims, laid down parameters to determine minority status for educational institutions
Law on prevention of child marriages can’t be stunted by personal laws
A bench headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud in October issued several directions for the effective implementation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and said that child marriage deprives children of their agency, autonomy and right to fully develop and enjoy their childhood.
The bench ordered that state governments and Union Territories appoint officers solely responsible for discharging the functions of child marriage prohibition officers at the district level.
“Both sexes are adversely affected by forced and early marriage. Marrying in childhood has the effect of objectifying the child. The practice of child marriage imposes mature burdens on children who are not physically or mentally prepared to comprehend the significance of marriage,” the court said.
SC’s guidelines against ‘bulldozer justice’
Responding to the nationwide misuse of bulldozer demolitions targeting minority communities, the Supreme Court declared such actions unconstitutional. Procedural safeguards, including 15-day notices and personal hearings, were mandated. Officials violating these norms would face personal liability.
The ruling highlighted systemic executive overreach, with over 150,000 homes razed and 700,000 people, primarily Muslims, rendered homeless in two years.
| 
